RE: New Speed Camera To Catch Multiple Offences
Thursday 4th November 2010
We prefer Bertie Bassett...A new speed camera is being tested that can catch up to five offences at once.
New Speed Camera To Catch Multiple Offences
Forget five a day - this thing nets five at once
We prefer Bertie Bassett...
The Asset camera - which could soon be headed for the UK - can pick out drivers not wearing seatbelts and can measure the distance between cars to spot tailgaters, while a numberplate recognition system targets those with no insurance or out-of-date tax. Oh, and it can measure how fast you're going, too.
Asset (which stands for Advanced Safety and Support for Essential road Transport - we know you were wondering) is currently being tested in Finland, where it is being developed by a group that includes European universities and research centres, funded by the European Commission.
Its creators hope that the new cameras, which have been under develeopment for two years, will be ready to roll out across Europe - and that includes the UK - by 2013. "The main intention is to support traffic police to supervise that the drivers follow traffic rules such as wearing seat belts, preventing over-speeding and maintaining sufficient distance to the front vehicle," Matti Kutila of the VTT Technical Research Centre in Finland, where the system is being tested, told The Guardian. "This of course is beneficial for road safety."
Motoring groups in the UK have cautiously praised the Asset system - on the proviso it is a safety measure rather than a money spinner.
"Tailgating is more dangerous in most cases than speeding so I think most motorists would welcome it," Said Edmund King, president of the AA. "We will need sophisticated technology to police the roads and there would have to be safeguards. But it needs to be done as a safety measure, not as a money-making machine."
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the campaign group Speed Cameras Dot Org told The Guardian: "We cautiously welcome a device that can detect several potential motoring offences, but it remains to be seen how accurate it is and how fairly it will be used. The main actions that cause the most accidents, namely not paying attention to the road, misjudging distances and other drivers' intentions, cannot be detected by a device of any sort."
Discussion
Edmund King is a daft twit, NO MOST MOTORIST WOULD NOT LIKE IT!!! Why do they go to the AA, they do NOT represent motorists, I would rather here view for organisations like Piston Heads that truely represents the motorist.
The government could put any thing out on the motorist and the AA would bend over and take it with ease, no lube required. They oppose nothing, they are just merely a business organisation now.
The government could put any thing out on the motorist and the AA would bend over and take it with ease, no lube required. They oppose nothing, they are just merely a business organisation now.
So say this is monitoring a stretch of NSL dual carriageway. You are travelling safely at 70mph in the outside lane with plenty of distance between you and the car ahead. Then somebody travelling at 60mph pulls in to your lane as you are approaching them to pass, just before the camera. Camera snaps you for not leaving enough space despite the other car pulling out on you?
Sorry to fan the flames, but I don't have a problem with appropriately sited speed cameras enforcing appropriate speed limits.
If these cameras can also catch out those scrotes who decide that they don't need to pay road tax that the rest of us do, or drive with no seat belts or so close that you can't see their bonnet in your rear view mirror then good.
I do have a problem with inappropriate speed limits being set by councils with an agenda or sheer stupidity but I cannot argue that these limits shouldn't be enforced, that way lies anarchy. Once you get Police deciding which laws should be enforced, where and when then you live in a Police State and no one wants that least of all me.
I would rather see speed limits being set by people who actually have a clue, including local representatives, Police and drivers associations, not high minded NIMBYs who believe the tripe put out by Brake.
If these cameras can also catch out those scrotes who decide that they don't need to pay road tax that the rest of us do, or drive with no seat belts or so close that you can't see their bonnet in your rear view mirror then good.
I do have a problem with inappropriate speed limits being set by councils with an agenda or sheer stupidity but I cannot argue that these limits shouldn't be enforced, that way lies anarchy. Once you get Police deciding which laws should be enforced, where and when then you live in a Police State and no one wants that least of all me.
I would rather see speed limits being set by people who actually have a clue, including local representatives, Police and drivers associations, not high minded NIMBYs who believe the tripe put out by Brake.
Escort Si-130 said:
Edmund King is a daft twit, NO MOST MOTORIST WOULD NOT LIKE IT!!! Why do they go to the AA, they do NOT represent motorists, I would rather here view for organisations like Piston Heads that truely represents the motorist.
The government could put any thing out on the motorist and the AA would bend over and take it with ease, no lube required. They oppose nothing, they are just merely a business organisation now.
I find constant media references to the AA as an organisation that somehow 'represents' motorists very tiresome. As I understand it, it's a private company, funded by private equity firms, and it's in the business of selling insurance to make a profit.The government could put any thing out on the motorist and the AA would bend over and take it with ease, no lube required. They oppose nothing, they are just merely a business organisation now.
All Edmund King's statements should be presented in that light, but why people are interested in the AA's view at all nowadays is quite beyond me. Anyone disagree?
Isn't this mostly pointless? Why does a computer system need to physically see a car on the road to know whether or not it's tax disc has expired? It's a simple date in a database that can tell you that. You can't get a tax disc without valid insurance or mot, the details of which can also be checked via computer without the use of a camera.
And if some one really wanted to flaunt the law, and drive uninsured and untaxed, would they put their real address on the V5, or bother with the V5 at all? Course not, so what's a camera going to do? Send an angry letter to a false address?
Get rid of this bloody technology, and allow police patrols to use (hopefully well trained) human judgment, and don't dish out potentialy career/life destroying points left right and center. This robotized black/white system is quite breakable, and isn't human friendly.
And if some one really wanted to flaunt the law, and drive uninsured and untaxed, would they put their real address on the V5, or bother with the V5 at all? Course not, so what's a camera going to do? Send an angry letter to a false address?
Get rid of this bloody technology, and allow police patrols to use (hopefully well trained) human judgment, and don't dish out potentialy career/life destroying points left right and center. This robotized black/white system is quite breakable, and isn't human friendly.
Edited by MIP1983 on Thursday 4th November 09:58
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the campaign group Speed Cameras Dot Org told The Guardian: "...The main actions that cause the most accidents, namely not paying attention to the road, misjudging distances and other drivers' intentions, cannot be detected by a device of any sort."
^ This.
Metal boxes at the side of the road cannot stop accidents. Encouraging people to wear seatbelts cant be a bad thing though. Hopefully it can detect harnesses.
^ This.
Metal boxes at the side of the road cannot stop accidents. Encouraging people to wear seatbelts cant be a bad thing though. Hopefully it can detect harnesses.
I totally agree with MKnight702 but what has always got my back up is when the camera is placed on roads where it is obviously just a money earner and not really needed there.
I also think that the speed limits should be increased to 80mph on motorways (yes I realise that people will say " why not 90 or 100mph" but I`m trying to be reasonable). When the 70mph was introduced, the vehicles did`nt have the stopping power that we have now. Come to that let`s be honest 30mph is like a snails pace in some urban areas - and yes I realise around schools etc it should be at a snails pace. Maybe there`s to many "Sunday drivers" in government. Everybody has broken the speed limit at some time or else their downright liars!
I also think that the speed limits should be increased to 80mph on motorways (yes I realise that people will say " why not 90 or 100mph" but I`m trying to be reasonable). When the 70mph was introduced, the vehicles did`nt have the stopping power that we have now. Come to that let`s be honest 30mph is like a snails pace in some urban areas - and yes I realise around schools etc it should be at a snails pace. Maybe there`s to many "Sunday drivers" in government. Everybody has broken the speed limit at some time or else their downright liars!
I welcome that technology is being used to tackle offences such as No Insurance, No MOT and no tax. Tackling no seatbelt is a nice addition too. Speed, is often just a figure. It takes no account of road conditions (wet, icy, covered in decaying leaves), visibility (fog), or other variables (pub closing time or within half a mile of a school around 3pm), all of which could mean even 30mph is too fast. If these cameras are used in built up areas, and not the 'within the 3km' rule that Road Safety Partnerships seem to think is appropriate, sites where serious accidents have occurred, or outside schools, few sensible drivers would have a problem with them.
Positioning cameras at profit generating sites just devalues the good they can do. It drives a wedge between the people, and those employed to look after them. Any bureaucrat using sfety devices for revenue genaration wants to take a good hard look at themselves.
Personally, i think the points system is in need of review. 3points for a speeding offence is disproportional to what you have done. The fine for no insurance is usually less than most peoples annual renewal, and isn't a deterent.
I'm all in favour of speed awareness courses instead of the points. More driver education is required to eliminate these offences, and if these cameras help target training to those who need it, surely this is good. Passing a test when your 17, then never having any more tuition is crazy!
And if your excess speed led to an accident (proven - beyond all reasonable doubt), then 3 points isn't enough!
Its all about how you deploy the tech, not the tech itself.
Positioning cameras at profit generating sites just devalues the good they can do. It drives a wedge between the people, and those employed to look after them. Any bureaucrat using sfety devices for revenue genaration wants to take a good hard look at themselves.
Personally, i think the points system is in need of review. 3points for a speeding offence is disproportional to what you have done. The fine for no insurance is usually less than most peoples annual renewal, and isn't a deterent.
I'm all in favour of speed awareness courses instead of the points. More driver education is required to eliminate these offences, and if these cameras help target training to those who need it, surely this is good. Passing a test when your 17, then never having any more tuition is crazy!
And if your excess speed led to an accident (proven - beyond all reasonable doubt), then 3 points isn't enough!
Its all about how you deploy the tech, not the tech itself.
Daaaveee said:
So say this is monitoring a stretch of NSL dual carriageway. You are travelling safely at 70mph in the outside lane with plenty of distance between you and the car ahead. Then somebody travelling at 60mph pulls in to your lane as you are approaching them to pass, just before the camera. Camera snaps you for not leaving enough space despite the other car pulling out on you?
Exactly what I was thinking. People squeeze into the most ludicrous spaces available. If you leave more than a fag paper somebody appears. I see time and again people wander out into another lane to overtake without increasing their speed so you have to reduce yours. I just don't see how the camera could possibly compensate for that. However would the powers that be give a toss?It's called technology for the sake of it.
The best traffic lights would be ones managed by a real person just sitting and watching, and changing the lights accordingly.
If we can't get truly intelligent traffic lights that can actually work out the flow/queue sizes, what hope in goodness have we got of a camera being able to tell who's tailgating and who's just been cut up? ( to use but one example).
Now, someone in a high position will tell me how intelligent traffic really lights are these days, which is great, but I don't see proof of that on my daily commutes i.e. the main road completely jammed with nothing from the sideroad, but every 1 minute the side road gets a 45second slot. Continually...
These road safety clowns don't live in the real world.
The best traffic lights would be ones managed by a real person just sitting and watching, and changing the lights accordingly.
If we can't get truly intelligent traffic lights that can actually work out the flow/queue sizes, what hope in goodness have we got of a camera being able to tell who's tailgating and who's just been cut up? ( to use but one example).
Now, someone in a high position will tell me how intelligent traffic really lights are these days, which is great, but I don't see proof of that on my daily commutes i.e. the main road completely jammed with nothing from the sideroad, but every 1 minute the side road gets a 45second slot. Continually...
These road safety clowns don't live in the real world.
My first thought was also regarding the use on a dual carriagway/mway and the scenario when a car pulls out into the gap you hav left, or suddenly brakes meaning that you use the space you have left yourself so safley reduce your speed, but in doing so temporarily close the gap.
As for catching uninsured etc, don't we already have cameras that do that, I thought ANPR is supposed to do that is it not, without worrying about how fast you are going etc?
As for catching uninsured etc, don't we already have cameras that do that, I thought ANPR is supposed to do that is it not, without worrying about how fast you are going etc?
Daaaveee said:
So say this is monitoring a stretch of NSL dual carriageway. You are travelling safely at 70mph in the outside lane with plenty of distance between you and the car ahead. Then somebody travelling at 60mph pulls in to your lane as you are approaching them to pass, just before the camera. Camera snaps you for not leaving enough space despite the other car pulling out on you?
a very valid point! also, you are safely following someone, both doing 70mph, person sees camera, panics, slams brakes on, you carry on at 70mph for a short while so catch him up, oops you get done. f
king joke. whilst tailgaters are annoying, i just let them get on with it these days, if they go in the back of me it's their problem. i usually do some brake testing to see how alert they are 
mind you, i get frustrated following people going below the speed limit for no apparent reason.as already stated, a lot of this can be checked on a database so i think it's somewhat pointless to be honest.
Turbobanana said:
IF (and it's a big if) it can be used to prevent tailgating, insurance / tax didgers and people not wearing seatbelts, then I don't think we have too much to worry about. Except speeding, obviously, but I think we're wise enough to know where the cameras are now, no?
Good call, aside from the comment above about lane-changers, no-one has any excuse for being too close. Again, tax and insurance is a fair idea. BUT the seatbelt thing is a load of gash, what about lap belts!? And will it take into account vehicles not fitted with seatbelts?Been waiting for tailgating cameras for a while, not too enthused about the rest though...
Chris-R said:
Escort Si-130 said:
Edmund King is a daft twit, NO MOST MOTORIST WOULD NOT LIKE IT!!! Why do they go to the AA, they do NOT represent motorists, I would rather here view for organisations like Piston Heads that truely represents the motorist.
The government could put any thing out on the motorist and the AA would bend over and take it with ease, no lube required. They oppose nothing, they are just merely a business organisation now.
I find constant media references to the AA as an organisation that somehow 'represents' motorists very tiresome. As I understand it, it's a private company, funded by private equity firms, and it's in the business of selling insurance to make a profit.The government could put any thing out on the motorist and the AA would bend over and take it with ease, no lube required. They oppose nothing, they are just merely a business organisation now.
All Edmund King's statements should be presented in that light, but why people are interested in the AA's view at all nowadays is quite beyond me. Anyone disagree?
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff